Climate Change

[ShaktiGurl]

Originally Posted by JK n Smitty

Scientists have some of the biggest egos on the planet! That why they love when you prove someone else's work wrong. But prove their work wrong and you have an enemy for life. They also typically have very fragile personalities. Making them hesitant to criticize each other in public because they are afraid of insulting their colleagues.

I am not so sure this is true. I interact with these scientists (NOAA, NASA, NGA, etc) on a daily basis (because they use our software to do their analysis) and their egos are no more than, say, the guys who call in from Oil exploration companies. They do good work but it is science based on models which are based on imperfect and somewhat limited data. They have no problem criticizing each other in public as you will see it in any scientific conference. If they can't take criticism of their methods, they shouldn't go into science because it is full of analytic people who will pick it apart with the actual knowledge and experience to do so.

It seems to me there is a lot of very real evidence that human activities are influencing the (always changing) climate. How much is TBD. There are just a lot of people on this planet using a lot of stuff to live. I don't see carbon exchanges as being effective or useful. Perhaps a better focus to ameliorate the effects is through conservation of resources and technology to make (us) more adaptable to change. The natives used to pick up tipi and move, across ice covered oceans if necessary. A boat is a good place to be maybe!

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by ShaktiGurl

I am not so sure this is true. I interact with these scientists (NOAA, NASA, NGA, etc) on a daily basis (because they use our software to do their analysis) and their egos are no more than, say, the guys who call in from Oil exploration companies. They do good work but it is science based on models which are based on imperfect and somewhat limited data. They have no problem criticizing each other in public as you will see it in any scientific conference. If they can't take criticism of their methods, they shouldn't go into science because it is full of analytic people who will pick it apart with the actual knowledge and experience to do so.

It seems to me there is a lot of very real evidence that human activities are influencing the (always changing) climate. How much is TBD. There are just a lot of people on this planet using a lot of stuff to live. I don't see carbon exchanges as being effective or useful. Perhaps a better focus to ameliorate the effects is through conservation of resources and technology to make (us) more adaptable to change. The natives used to pick up tipi and move, across ice covered oceans if necessary. A boat is a good place to be maybe!

... psst. you're obviously part of the global "climate change" conspiracy! You know, we didn't land on the moon, either.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

As long as they ask the Dutch to build the dikes: No problem.

...And since it's happening slowly we have plenty of time to adapt.

The Dutch are not so sanguine about saving Miami. How long is "plenty of time"?

Goodbye, Miami | ROLLING STONE

… You would never know it from looking at Miami today. Rivers of money are flowing in from Latin America, Europe and beyond, new upscale shopping malls are opening, and the skyline is crowded with construction cranes. But the unavoidable truth is that sea levels are rising and Miami is on its way to becoming an American Atlantis. It may be another century before the city is completely underwater (though some more-pessimistic scientists predict it could be much sooner), but life in the vibrant metropolis of 5.5 million people will begin to dissolve much quicker, most likely within a few decades. The rising waters will destroy Miami slowly, by seeping into wiring, roads, building foundations and drinking-water supplies – and quickly, by increasing the destructive power of hurricanes. "Miami, as we know it today, is doomed," says Harold Wanless, the chairman of the department of geological sciences at the University of Miami. "It's not a question of if. It's a question of when…"

The latest research, including an assessment by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, suggests that sea level could rise more than six feet by the end of the century. James Hansen, the godfather of global-warming science, has argued that it could increase as high as 16 feet by then – and Wanless believes that it could continue rising a foot each decade after that. "With six feet of sea-level rise, South Florida is toast," says Tom Gustafson, a former Florida speaker of the House and a climate-change-policy advocate. Even if we cut carbon pollution overnight, it won't save us. Ohio State glaciologist Jason Box has said he believes we already have 70 feet of sea-level rise baked into the system…

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development lists Miami as the number-one most vulnerable city worldwide in terms of property damage, with more than $416 billion in assets at risk to storm-related flooding and sea-level rise…

South Florida has two big problems. The first is its remarkably flat topography…

Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. "Imagine Swiss cheese, and you'll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like," …Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here …"

One of the first consequences of rising seas will be loss of drinking water. In fact, it's already starting to happen… The conventional solution to this was simple: Drill new drinking wells farther west, away from the salty water. The trouble is, engineers have done that already and can't move any farther west without running into the Everglades. Instead, engineers are now turning to more radical solutions, such as trying to capture storm water and store it underground, or reuse water from sewage-treatment plants. This will help, but ultimately South Florida is likely to rely more and more on desalination, a complex industrial-scale process that eliminates the salt from the sea water…

Truth be told, it's hard to live on a thin barrier island seven miles long like Miami Beach and be a climate-change denier…Whenever there is a full moon and a high tide, the sea water comes up through the old storm drains and flows into the streets. In some places, it bubbles up between the street and the sidewalk.

But no Dutch engineering firm I talked to had any concrete ideas about how to save Miami… Miami is different. It is also a low-lying city but far more complicated because of issues about water quality, the porousness of the limestone the city sits on, as well as water coming in from the west, through the Everglades..."

But in the end, Saltrick believes the only long-term way to protect Miami Beach from sea-level rise is to raise the city itself: the roads, the buildings, everything…

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, which sits on the edge of the Biscayne Bay just south of Miami, is completely exposed to hurricanes and rising seas. "It is impossible to imagine a stupider place to build a nuclear plant than Turkey Point," says Philip Stoddard, the mayor of South Miami and an outspoken critic of the plant…

the situation at Turkey Point underscores the backwardness of how we calculate the risks of nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Committee, which oversees the safety of nukes in America, demands that operators take into account past natural hazards such as storms and earthquakes, "but they are silent about future hazards like sea-level rise and increasing storm surges," Lochbaum says… Florida Power and Light thinks Turkey Point is such a great place for nukes that they are proposing to build two more reactors out there…

The financial catastrophe could play out like this: As insurance rates climb, fewer are able to afford homes. Housing prices fall, which slows development, which decreases the tax base, which makes cities and towns even less able to afford the infrastructure upgrades necessary to adapt to rising seas. The spiral continues downward. Beaches deteriorate, hotels sit empty, restaurants close. Because Miami's largest economies are development and tourism, it's a deadly tailspin. The threat of sea-level rise bankrupts the state even before it is wiped out by a killer storm…

Americans will also have to face up to the fact that Everglades National Park, home to one of the most remarkable ecosystems in the world, is a goner. More than half the park will be inundated with just three feet of sea-level rise, and the rest of it will vanish shortly thereafter. "We are going to have to change the name to Everglades National Marine Sanctuary,"…

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by ShaktiGurl

I am not so sure this is true. I interact with these scientists (NOAA, NASA, NGA, etc) on a daily basis (because they use our software to do their analysis) and their egos are no more than, say, the guys who call in from Oil exploration companies. They do good work but it is science based on models which are based on imperfect and somewhat limited data. They have no problem criticizing each other in public as you will see it in any scientific conference. If they can't take criticism of their methods, they shouldn't go into science because it is full of analytic people who will pick it apart with the actual knowledge and experience to do so.

It seems to me there is a lot of very real evidence that human activities are influencing the (always changing) climate. How much is TBD. There are just a lot of people on this planet using a lot of stuff to live. I don't see carbon exchanges as being effective or useful. Perhaps a better focus to ameliorate the effects is through conservation of resources and technology to make (us) more adaptable to change. The natives used to pick up tipi and move, across ice covered oceans if necessary. A boat is a good place to be maybe!

Well said

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by cdreid

The level of dumb in this thread is shocking. Maybe it's a good thing these threads get locked.

Climate change is happening. Mankind has had a large effect on that. There are no reputable climatologists not directly funded by big energy who disagree. There are lots of ignorant righties who disagree because thats what they were told to think.

• The effects: Every continent will lose valuable land mass. Manhatten may need a dike within 100 years lest 25% of it disappear. Small island chains will disappear. That is already happening. Some agricultural regions will become unuseable. There will be some areas that become agriculturally viable. Scientists theorised that we would see more and more weather (rain, storms, winds etc) globally. Currently however most believe we will see more extreme weather rather than more. The recent hurricanes etc are Anecdotal data. No climatologist will claim they are due to climate change... the science doesnt work that way. The science is based on long term statistical data... which requires data collected over a long term.
• How it does/will affect us. Potential famines. More extreme weather... doesnt bode well for sailors. lots of salvage boats. Some of those little nook island nations you love may dissapear in your lifetime

This is science. Neither it nor reality are affected by how you "feel", what your politics are, or who you vote for. The universe doesnt care. And like all science the scientists dont have their ego's riding on anything. The most exciting thing you can show a scientist is proof something the scientific community accepted as fact is wrong. Because that opens up whole new avenues of thought and research.

NEW YORK TIMES | New Climate Data Depict a City More at Risk

The Bloomberg administration on Monday issued new warnings about New York City’s vulnerability to climate change, offering updated data to encourage businesses, residents and perhaps even future mayors to better prepare against hotter weather, fiercer storms and increased rainfall.

Administration officials estimated that more than 800,000 city residents will live in the 100-year flood plain by the 2050s. That figure is more than double the 398,000 currently estimated to be at risk, based on new maps the Federal Emergency Management Agency released Monday…

Administration officials said that between 1971 and 2000, New Yorkers had an average of 18 days a year with temperatures at or above 90 degrees. By the 2020s, that figure could be as high as 33 days, and by the 2050s, it could reach 57, according to data collected by the New York City Panel on Climate Change…

When Hurricane Sandy hit on Oct. 29, the federal agency’s flood maps were already considered outdated. They were revised in 2007, but had used data from 1983. In an attempt to help people rebuild, FEMA released new advisory maps in January. But those maps drew protests because they more than doubled the number of structures included within flood-prone areas, to 70,000 in New York City (out of a total of nearly one million structures), making people vulnerable to sharp flood insurance rate hikes...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l?ref=nyregion

[IdoraKeeper]

This thread is a challenge to the civility of CF...I am gratified that the level of class normally shown here is pertaining. I hope it continues.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

This thread is a challenge to the civility of CF...I am gratified that the level of class normally shown here is pertaining. I hope it continues.

Now you have done it!

BTW - what did someone mean we landed on the Moon? I thought that was a movie, afterall I saw the follow up one where OJ went to Mars.

[Capt Phil]

We will all be much safer and healthier under Sharia Law. Man is only a vistor here, we've been around for what a couple of hundred thousand years... we'll be long gone in another hundred thousand and leave a husk of a planet behind, riddled with astro debris, lifeless and barren. As George Carlin said... 'all that will be left are beer cans and a couple of styro cups'. Cheers, Phil

[JK n Smitty]

Originally Posted by ShaktiGurl

I am not so sure this is true. I interact with these scientists (NOAA, NASA, NGA, etc) on a daily basis (because they use our software to do their analysis) and their egos are no more than, say, the guys who call in from Oil exploration companies.

Those guys at the oil companies are scientists too. My statement applies to them as well.

They do good work but it is science based on models which are based on imperfect and somewhat limited data. They have no problem criticizing each other in public as you will see it in any scientific conference. If they can't take criticism of their methods, they shouldn't go into science because it is full of analytic people who will pick it apart with the actual knowledge and experience to do so.

Having attended a number of scientific conferences I will just say two things. One, they do criticize and questions each others work in that setting. Two, most don't view that as "public". There is typically very little media attention being paid to conferences with the exception of the big climate change ones that typically don't have the same level of discourse.

My point in my original statement is that to assume that scientists are somehow above the human frailties of ego, jealousy, confirmation bias or others is wrong. They are just as subject to those personality traits as the businessman, lawyer, doctor, etc.

It seems to me there is a lot of very real evidence that human activities are influencing the (always changing) climate. How much is TBD. There are just a lot of people on this planet using a lot of stuff to live. I don't see carbon exchanges as being effective or useful. Perhaps a better focus to ameliorate the effects is through conservation of resources and technology to make (us) more adaptable to change. The natives used to pick up tipi and move, across ice covered oceans if necessary. A boat is a good place to be maybe!

Couldn't agree more. There are plenty of reasons we should be more conservative with resources and avoid pollution. I see it every day. My job is to clean up the problems that we (humans) are causing through the careless storage, use and disposal of chemicals.

[The Garbone]

Fixed it....

Major Danish Daily Newspaper Warns: ‘Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age

89.3% or statistics are fabricated out of thin air to support alarmist arguments. True, I reads it on the net....

[avb3]

For those who discuss in depth that climate has cooled and climate has warmed before, you are correct.

However, this is the first time that CO2 levels in the atmosphere has risen BEFORE global temperatures have , not AFTERWARDS.

All the ranting against individuals involved in the debate does not change the science.

How we address man's impact is a different debate. The science still does not change.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Climate Change is a topic that affects boaters, at least indirectly. There have been at least a few other threads on this topic on CF, but they have been closed -- not due to lack of interest, but because posters were getting snarky with each other.

I think you may have misunderstood what happens in those threads (maybe read them all again?)......

.....for those who have not read them all, what happens is that after a dozen or so pages I sacrifice another goat ..............that both solves Climate Change for a little while and ensures the sun comes up in the morning (dual use technology )........and therefore the thread can be (safely) closed as a cure no longer needed .

How else do you think we are not all by now under the predicted 20 metres of water whilst sitting in a desert? By chance? or from praying to Al Gore .........it's only because some of us have really put some effort into stopping Climate Change - especially the Goat .

And yes, I am a Scientist. A Goatologist .

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

We will all be much safer and healthier under Sharia Law. Man is only a vistor here, we've been around for what a couple of hundred thousand years... we'll be long gone in another hundred thousand and leave a husk of a planet behind, riddled with astro debris, lifeless and barren. As George Carlin said... 'all that will be left are beer cans and a couple of styro cups'. Cheers, Phil

Not sure why sharia law would help. But if you think it will, you must be an expert.

As to your 2nd comment , we will leave the planet just like we have left the sea.

I am reminded of the line the Agent spoke in the matrix



Dave

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by The Garbone

Fixed it....

Major Danish Daily Newspaper Warns: ‘Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age

89.3% or statistics are fabricated out of thin air to support alarmist arguments. True, I reads it on the net....

A Danish newspaper can say anything it likes. Scientists don't and never did support that notion in large numbers (see my earlier post). It's just an effort to muddy the waters by a side of the argument that doesn't care about the facts.

Oh, and btw, 'Climate Depot' is a well-known denier forum. You should upgrade the quality of your source material.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by avb3

For those who discuss in depth that climate has cooled and climate has warmed before, you are correct.

However, this is the first time that CO2 levels in the atmosphere has risen BEFORE global temperatures have , not AFTERWARDS.

All the ranting against individuals involved in the debate does not change the science.

How we address man's impact is a different debate. The science still does not change.

+1